BAR defers Dunkin’ conversion at former bank on Potomac Station Drive for revised drawings and samples

The Leesburg Board of Architectural Review on May 21 deferred review of proposed exterior alterations to convert the former bank at 607 Potomac Station Drive NE into a Dunkin’ restaurant to a June 2 work session, asking the applicant to provide revised drawings, material and lighting details, and examples of similar bank‑to‑restaurant conversions.

Staff described the application’s main elements: infilling a second‑story center window and installing double doors to create a pedestrian entrance on the parking‑lot side, replacing an ATM opening with a window, installing an orange metal trim/brand banding around portions of the façade, adding a metal awning at the customer entrance, fitting a canopy over the drive‑through menu board, and installing backlit decorative metal bands between first‑ and second‑story windows. Staff recommended discussion about whether the proposed orange linear trim bands function as signage rather than architectural detailing and suggested alternatives such as awnings or other architectural lighting; staff also asked for clarification on the refuse enclosure and its materials.

Applicants’ representatives (architect Jason Scott and applicants Ian and Christian Cabral) said Dunkin’s current prototype emphasizes horizontal trim bands instead of angled fabric awnings, and that corporate standards discourage fabric awnings because of maintenance and fading. The team said they could reuse existing brick headers, sills and other masonry where possible, and that a masonry refuse enclosure matching the building’s brick would be provided.

Board members discussed multiple alternatives: keeping some upper divided lights while removing snap‑in muntins from large storefront glazing, converting the proposed orange striping into functional canopies (three‑bay canopy with a larger central bay rather than multiple narrow bands), or using vertically oriented accent elements tied to the building’s pilasters. Several members emphasized that if the orange elements are purely branding (and not architecturally integrated), zoning or BAR sign rules may treat them as signage. Staff reiterated that existing BAR guidelines discourage highly intense accent colors and recommend compatibility with surrounding materials; board members encouraged the applicants to focus revised designs on canopies and integrated lighting rather than thin orange banding.

The board voted to defer; the motion asked for revised drawings based on the discussion, photographs of comparable bank‑to‑Dunkin conversions, and clarification on refuse enclosure masonry and lighting. The motion passed 7–0.

What the applicant must provide: revised elevation drawings showing proposed canopy alternatives, refined lighting details (including Kelvin ratings and fixture locations), the design and materials of the refuse enclosure to match the building, and examples/photos of other Dunkin’ conversions that reuse bank buildings. The BAR noted the site’s existing architectural character — a neo‑classical/“faux” bank façade — increases the challenge of fitting contemporary brand elements and asked the applicant to explore solutions that better tie the brand elements to the building’s form rather than adding arbitrary strips of color.